Tag Archives | governance

Netflix Approach to Governance: Genuine Transparency with the Board (download) by David F. Larcker andBrian Tayan takes a look at one aspect of corporate governance at Netflix and finds “a radically different approach to information sharing” by management with the Board. Shareholders are largely left out of the equation.

Netflix Approach to Governance: Management

Netflix Approach to Governance has the appearance of a balanced look at how management shares information with the Board. There is no suggestion the approach can be widely copied. Says Larker,

I think it would be hard to put this type of system in place at older and more mature organizations. Innovative organizations that want and need the insights from board members can clearly adapt this type of approach. You need a CEO who wants a high level of discussion about strategy, etc., and is open to alternative points of view.

Transparency works at Netflix, at least in part, because CEO Reed Hastings understands board members would not have the confidence to make tough calls unless they have a better understanding of the company.

Transparency is hard to argue against, unless it leads to directors leaking information that reaches competitors. Larcker and Tayan interviewed CEO Reed Hastings and most of the board members. They describe two key features of what they appear to believe is remmanagement transparency.

Board members attend monthly and quarterly senior management meetings as observers. Communications to the board take the shape of approximately 30-page memos that are heavy on analysis and contain links to all relevant data on the company’s internal computer systems. (Another Netflix Disruption: A Transparent Board)

More frequent meetings with senior staff and more information allows Netflix directors to work more effectively, since they are better able to assess strategic developments. It is hard to tell what impact transparency is having on the company but,

Netflix has been enormously successful over the last five years. Revenues have nearly tripled, increasing to $11.69 billion from $4.4 billion at the end of 2013, while the market cap soared to $133 billion from $4.4 billion.

Directors like the approach.

The overall tone Reed has set, really from early days, is around transparency. … There is no editorializing. There’s no censorship.

It’s just a deep desire to hear rational, well-argued pros and cons of any decision.

No censorship and frank discussions between management and board; if other companies are not operating that way, why not? Equally important, why does that approach not carry through to the relationship between shareholders and the board?

Netflix Approach to Governance: Shareholders

The hallmark of good corporate governance is an independent-minded board of directors to oversee management and represent the interests of shareholders.

The only other significant reference to shareholders comes later in the following sentence:

While fiduciary rules allow directors to rely exclusively on information provided by management, dynamics such as these can reduce the quality of that information and impair their ability to make good decisions on behalf of shareholders.

Even through the law allows directors to rely on what the CEO and other senior executives tell them, directors make better decisions when the company is more transparent – when they can observe meetings further down the chain and have more direct access to company relevant data. Yet, the Netflix approach to governance appears one-sided. Transparency and dialogue are missing when it comes to management and shareholders.

As I pointed out in a recent post, Netflix has repeatedly ignored shareholder votes. (Will Netflix Ignore Stockholders Again?) While proxy proposals are generally precatory, most companies implement those receiving a majority vote and often those that do not. The Netflix approach to governance appears to ignore proxy votes whenever legally possible.

In 2014 a majority voted to declassify the board and to require a majority vote to elect directors.

In 2015 similar proposals were voted and won. A majority of shareholders also voted against director Barton, who, although he lost, was up for reelection this year.

In 2016 a majority of shares were voted in favor of proxy access, reducing supermajority vote requirements, and declassifying the board.

In 2017 a majority of shares were voted in favor of proxy access, to declassify the board, to require a majority vote for electing directors and to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements. As far as I know, none of those proposals were implemented by the Board.

In 2018 a majority of shares were voted in favor of the following:

Reduce Ownership Threshold for Shareholders to Call Special Meeting (57%)

Adopt Proxy Access Right (58%)

Provide Right to Act by Written Consent (52%)

Adopt Simple Majority Vote (85%)

Amend Bylaws (72%) This was a binding proposal to require directors in uncontested elections to be elected by a majority of shares voted

Given the Netflix approach to governance with regard to shareholders, I expect the only proposal that will be adopted from this year is the binding proposal to require a majority vote in uncontested directors elections. The vote in favor surpassed the bylaw requirement of a two-thirds threshold.

Although I do not question the scholarship of Larcker and Tayan, their discussion of the Netflix approach to governance would benefit from an examination of shareholder relations with the board. We hope that is on their agenda for a closer look.

a panel of experts discuss the role of the board of directors in addressing challenges of governance, liquidity, and employee retention in an era of capital abundance. The discussion will cover trends in venture capital investments in private companies, including increased funding levels and the rising number of unicorns, the length of time companies are staying private (which is generally longer now than in the past), and exit strategy and valuation trends in acquisitions versus IPOs.

In addition, the panelists will debate the governance implications and the consequences for employees of companies staying private with relatively unlimited access to capital, including:

Even in Washington, the numbers are impressive. The Council of Institutional Investors, who met in Washington DC this week, represents 23 trillion (with a t) dollars, mostly made up of retirement and other savings of working families. Compare that to the entire budget of the US government, less than two trillion a year. Like most industry group meetings in Washington, this one had presentations on what to expect from Congress and the regulatory agencies and how millennials will change the way the members do business, plus snack breaks and wireless sponsored by firms trying to sell products and services to the attendees. But the a two and a half day session featured repeated agenda topics on climate change and what are called ESG issues, suggesting that pension funds may step in where governments have failed.Continue Reading →

Douglas Park and Reza Dibadj have launched their boutique business and legal consultancy, Park and Dibadj(P&D)—a unique firm that addresses unmet needs in corporate strategy and governance. We bring decades of successful experience as both lawyers and strategists in extraordinarily challenging environments.

We believe that a siloed approach—law on the one hand, business on the other—cannot adequately address the most pressing problems of corporate governance and strategy. As such, we develop business strategies and also implement transactional structures and substantive legal arguments.

Reza Dibadj

Our experience practicing, consulting, and teaching both business law and strategy allows us to address two critical issues that companies face: corporate development and mitigating legal, operational, and financial risks to organizations and their directors and officers.

Corporate Development

With respect to corporate development, Park & Dibadj:

Collaborate with domestic and international business entities that seek financing strategies that do not require securities registration.

Advise on mergers & acquisitions, including identifying targets, contractual structures, appraisal rights, and due diligence to maximize the chances of a successful deal.

I don’t think we’ve gone back in time all year… too busy with proxy season. Join us as Mr. Peabody and Sherman prepare to go back in time to visit corpgov.net 5, 10 and 15 years ago. Yes, many links are broken. The world and the internet move on… still, it is worth a few minutes to reflect on where we’ve been.

Five years ago in Corporate Governance

A meeting of a board of directors of the Leipzig–Dresden Railway Company in 1852 (Wikipedia)

Those of us involved in corporate governance issues for a living enjoy talking shop with others in the field. One reason, I suspect, it that it’s so damned difficult to explain corporate governance norms to people on the outside. “You mean CEOs pretty well select the very board members who set those CEOs’ pay and performance standards? How can I get a job like that?”…and so on. Continue Reading →

Good corporate governance means quicker, more frequent disclosures to the stock market. Or does it? The evidence varies by country, and in our research we wanted to check the relationship.

We used cross-country data from 23 OECD countries, firms with financial years ending between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2008. We looked at company announcement information from more than 2,000 different firms, and share prices relating to 5,800 different firms. Continue Reading →

The 4th annual Global Proxy Review has now been published by the Global Unions Committee on Workers’ Capital (CWC), a joint initiative of the International Trade Union Confederation, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD and Global Unions Federation.

The report and interactive website encourages investors to take an active role in proxy voting oversight for global equity portfolios. Readers will learn how to take active role in proxy voting oversight for global equity portfolios. Continue Reading →

The word governance comes from a Latin word – gubernare – which means to steer. Cicero wrote “he that governs sits quietly at the stern and scarce is seen to stir”. Thus my colleague, Dr Collette Kirwan, has conceptualised the board as being the navigator of the company. Continue Reading →

MSCI Inc. (MSCI) announced it has agreed to acquire GMI Ratings, a provider of ESG (environmental, social and governance) ratings and research to institutional investors, through its subsidiary MSCI ESG Research Inc. The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter, subject to customary closing conditions. Said Remy Briand, Managing Director and Head of ESG Research. Continue Reading →

Two seminal research papers have won the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute’s (IRRCi) prestigious annual researchcompetition focused on the interaction of the real economy with investment theory. One research paper highlights the financial market’s ability to learn the value of corporate governance, and the second explores evolving fiduciary responsibilities resulting from the need for long-term value creation. IRRCi Chair Linda Scott announced the 2013 prize recipients yesterday at the Columbia University Millstein Governance Forum, Corporate Governance in the New ‘Normal’: The Impact of New Patterns of Corporate Ownership. Continue Reading →

“From the unstable equilibrium between entrepreneurial force and social fragmentation emerges corporate governance that is both legitimate and performing,” directing the “productive action of people who want to stay autonomous and free.” The quick takeaway: corporate governance must increasingly become more democratic to be seen as legitimate. Continue Reading →

Making IT Governance Work in a Sarbanes-Oxley World by Jaap Bloem, Menno van Doorn and Piyush Mittal presents a clear view that integrates corporate governance to IT governance. With 50% of all capital investment going into IT, it is critical that legal compliance be built in. This book discusses the issues and common misconceptions. Then it takes a balanced scorecard approach to providuing a value-added metrics.